What is your excuse for killing animals?

[Manopolus]

For me, human rights are indivsible and undeniable to every human being. They cannot be dismissed. Death penalty and torture are incompliant to human dignity and are, hence, unacceptable.

Yes, there are some basics that could be argued as absolutes. However, consider a society that does not have the means to build a jail that is capable of detaining prisoners... primitive society, if you will. What, pray tell, do you DO with people that continually kill their neighbors?

And is putting someone in a cage and depriving them of privacy and basic freedoms without cause not also a violation of human rights? We require a reason... and that reason is? Well, failure to comply with society's basic ethical structure.

This is consistent with my position on animal rights, no? Don't get me wrong, it's not that what animals do is evil... it is merely that they have no concept of morality whatsoever... and thus do not require the protection ethics provide in the way that humans do.

 

[Herzblut]

I admire Kant, but please explain to me anything he ever said about animal rights. I'm pretty sure all of his philosophy consisted of principles of human interaction amongst ourselves, but correct me if I'm wrong... I'm not an expert.

You said it already. Animal cruelty is wrong only insofar as it brutalizes or offends humans. Apart from that, animals are merely a means to an end, like rocks or water.

 

[Kahalachan]

I feel bad for killing bacteria, so I go months without bathing or doing anything hygienic.

 

[Cain]

Preferences and interests are abstract concepts that exist in our minds only.

Animals have preferences and interests whether we exist or not.

Embryos cannot be assigned human rights. Otherwise it would be impossible to kill an embryo in order to save the life of the pregnant woman.

I'm not sure what type of scenario you're trying to set up (the word "impossible" is potentially problematic). In this contest of interests it's not embryo versus woman but embryo versus embryo and woman. In any event, we see this type of situation when it comes to late-term abortions, where pro-lifers are not really taken to task for allowing doctors to terminate a pregnancy in the final stages if it will save the life of the mother.

===============================
===============================

Mirrorglass:

I'll come back to answer you in more detain when I have the time, but until then, I'll ask you to be sure the statement above, namely that it's silly or arbitrary to give children human rights because they're human, truly represents your views. Because honestly, this isn't making you look very good.

I hope what you're really asking is, "Do you honestly think this is an accurate representation of MY views?" Alternatively, I believe we can grant rights to children without resorting to tortured appeals involving the potential understanding of a concept the vast majority of our ancestors never imagined. We're lucky the aliens didn't come 10,000 years sooner.

 

[Herzblut]

Animals have preferences and interests whether we exist or not.

Well, animals act to survive and breed, that's basically it. Whatever supports that, they prefer and are iterested in (if you like to use those terms).

I'm not sure what type of scenario you're trying to set up (the word "impossible" is potentially problematic). In this contest of interests it's not embryo versus woman but embryo versus embryo and woman. In any event, we see this type of situation when it comes to late-term abortions, where pro-lifers are not really taken to task for allowing doctors to terminate a pregnancy in the final stages if it will save the life of the mother.

I was actually referring to exactly this type of situation. If a late fetus was a human being, it simply could not be killed to try to save the mother's life. Likewise, you cannot just kill an innocent man (say, remove his heart) to save another man's life.

 

[cyborg]

No kidding? It depends on the circumstances.

Then I'm a vegan.

Not quite. It's more than personal taste: I'm saying we have to take the preferences of animals into account; their interests matter.

And how exactly do you know what their interests are?

People are willing to say that animals should not be tortured for fun (the animal's suffering outweighs sadistic pleasure), but when it comes to eating animals -- regardless of the horrors on factory farms -- well, they taste delicious

Your strawman, not ours.

*fixed.

Ah yes, demonstrate how much more high and mighty you are with a cheap trick. Congratulations; how do your own farts smell? Delicious I'm sure.

You're venturing into naturalistic fallacy territory.

The only fallacy is the pretense that dividing things into "natural" and "artificial" is anything other than an arbitrary exercise in deciding how much we want to label our actions so.

Not that it matters, but I accept that nature is red in tooth and claw. The difference is that most humans are capable of moral decision-making.

Yes, and part of that ability to make moral decisions says that eating animals isn't wrong. You agree with this. Everything else is a matter of resource management yet I see very little talk of this. Maybe that is just too pragmatic for you when you can simply call those who object to your arguments childish and illogical?

The thing about meat-eaters -- most meat-eaters -- is that they already have an inchoate concept of rights for animals.

No, it's pretty simple; the concept is stupid. It's stupid enough for people, extending it to animals that don't and can't have any concept of human social constructs is just ridiculous.

 

[DC]

Wrong. Because

1) I don't speak for the Animal Kingdom
2) I don't live with any burdens of guilt for eating animals.

Sorry. Try again.

i think it is right.

1) nobody speaks for the Animal Kingdom.

2) you dont have any burdens of guilt because you have justified it to yourself.

 

[Kahalachan]

Thought Experiment:

Suppose some tasteless mush was synthesized and didn't kill any plant or animal life and was more nutritional. Are those who decide to eat it on some moral high ground above vegetarians and omnivores?

I would say no. They choose to sacrifice taste to kill less life. A vegetarian who wants an apple chooses to kill life for taste.


Just cause the agricultural technology exists to enable one to choose to be vegetarian, doesn't mean those of us who don't use it are any less ethical.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This question is nonsensical. To whom do you have to justify murder, rape, theft or arson? Who makes up the rules about whether or not you can rape and murder your next-door-neighbour?

Why is it nonsensical? The question you jut posed also has a very obvious answer. You mean you can't provide an answer for neither of them? Really?

(Obviously, I know what the answer is. I wanna see if you can follow the logical path of reason and answer it yourself)

To illustrate it better: In Islamic countries, it is considered "immoral" to let a woman show her hair, and doing so constitutes immediate punishment, including beating them up.

Other countries have different sets of moral rules. And in general, all of the moral values have changed over culture (For example, it was once accepted to murder women if they were simply suspected to be witches)

What does this tell you about morality? Where do you think it has its origins? Who speaks for morality? Who makes these rules?



Another hint/reminder:

Darwin: "I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created parasitic wasps with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars"


What does this finding tell you about the "morality" of nature?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

i think it is right.

1) nobody speaks for the Animal Kingdom.

2) you dont have any burdens of guilt because you have justified it to yourself.

"Justified", which is of course another human concept created by humans.

The people who work for ETA and make loud protests against the killing of cats and dogs, will certainly not give a damn about the killing of cancer cells, cockroaches, bacteria and mosquitoes.

Each individual "justifies" their "morality" which is a creation of culture, and like any creation of culture (which is constituted of memes) it can be modified and justified in any way.

The only difference here is that I acknowledge that and I don't claim to speak for a higher morality that's inherent to nature. That doesn't mean I go around killing animals for no reason at all. It just means I don't carry a burden of guilt for eating them and I don't let other people BS me around trying to make me feel guilty for doing something that's completely natural, no more than I let some religious fundies create me a guilt complex for having sex before getting married.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Listen, Kevin, regarding the "Naturalistic Fallacy":

Alternatively, the phrase "naturalistic fallacy" is used to refer to the claim that what is natural is inherently good or right, and that what is unnatural is bad or wrong (see "Appeal to nature"). It is the converse of the moralistic fallacy, or that what is good or right is natural and inherent.

The people who make this claim are obviously making a mistake: They are claiming that as long as it's natural, it's "good" or "right". I am not making that claim (I don't know about the rest of the people here). What is natural is neither right nor wrong. Because "right" and "wrong" are concepts created by human culture. No serious scientist will use qualifications when speaking about natural processes. Nature simply is. There are processes, and the most you can say is that some processes are beneficial to evolution and others counterproductive. But nature doesn't know "right" or "wrong". It, in fact, will do anything as long as it benefits the evolutionary process (Not a very pretty role model for human morality, now is it?)

So clearly, anyone making the claim that the way nature does it is "right", is making a fallacy. So is the one saying that the way nature does it is "wrong". Both people are making a mistake in attaching cultural values to a process that does not know anything about culture. It would be like saying that the natural way is "artistic", and the other way is "kitsch".

 

[DC]

"Justified", which is of course another human concept created by humans.

The people who work for ETA and make loud protests against the killing of cats and dogs, will certainly not give a damn about the killing of cancer cells, cockroaches, bacteria and mosquitoes.

Each individual "justifies" their "morality" which is a creation of culture, and like any creation of culture (which is constituted of memes) it can be modified and justified in any way.

The only difference here is that I acknowledge that and I don't claim to speak for a higher morality that's inherent to nature. That doesn't mean I go around killing animals for no reason at all. It just means I don't carry a burden of guilt for eating them and I don't let other people BS me around trying to make me feel guilty for doing something that's completely natural, no more than I let some religious fundies create me a guilt complex for having sex before getting married.

i think we just dont understand eachother.
i agree with you.

 

[tsig]

The naturalistic fallacy: stop posting it.



This question is nonsensical. To whom do you have to justify murder, rape, theft or arson? Who makes up the rules about whether or not you can rape and murder your next-door-neighbour?


Once again I draw your attention to the fact that you are making up idiotic straw men because you do not understand the arguments others are making. This is rude and counterproductive. Stop it.



You need to get your story straight.

A minute ago morality was, according to you, just whatever the society in question thinks is moral. By that argument Nazism and slavery were perfectly moral, because the people at that time thought they were.

Now you're saying that morality is whatever society thinks right now is moral. So Nazis were bad people, but only because we think right now that they were bad people. Or possibly only because they lost - if they had won, we'd think they were moral, and hence they really would be moral.

That second position is actually a weird form of moral objectivism, claiming that the moral fashion of the moment is eternal moral truth because it is the moral fashion of the moment.



You're confusing objective with absolute.



Thus demonstrating only that you didn't understand the argument in the first place.



One that provides guidance as to appropriate actions, does not clash to an unacceptable degree with our intuitions about what is good behaviour, and is not so demanding that nobody can or will follow it.



I don't think it has a name as such, any more than the view that both soccer and baseball are sports has a special name.

To pick two very well-known examples, Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism (the view that what is good is to maximise pleasure and minimise suffering) and Kant's Categorical Imperative (that what is good is take actions which you could wish with a good conscience be taken by all people in similar situations). As to whether Kant and Bentham's theories are "equally valid" I'll let you make up your own mind, but both are certainly coherent and useful in their own ways.

(Strictly speaking Kant's philosophy is absolutist, not objectivist, but this isn't the right audience for subtle distinctions).



This is wrong as a matter of fact. Kant, for example, famously cared nothing for outcomes. In his view moral behaviour was all about taking moral kinds of actions, and the outcome of those actions did not matter a jot. If telling the truth meant someone died, for example, Kant would still have you tell the truth. That, to him, was moral behaviour. To him the ends really did never justify the means.

Yes please stop with your straw men.

 

[tsig]

Thought Experiment:

Suppose some tasteless mush was synthesized and didn't kill any plant or animal life and was more nutritional. Are those who decide to eat it on some moral high ground above vegetarians and omnivores?

I would say no. They choose to sacrifice taste to kill less life. A vegetarian who wants an apple chooses to kill life for taste.


Just cause the agricultural technology exists to enable one to choose to be vegetarian, doesn't mean those of us who don't use it are any less ethical.

You only say that because eating meat dulls the brain and renders you less spiritual of course to become a real spirit you need to try breatharianism.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Some people choose to limit their source of nutrition by not eating meat. That doesn't make eating meat morally wrong. You could choose to eat only certain plants. That wouldn't make people who eat all plants immoral.



Your choice may seem odd to me but I am not threatened by it. I feel threatened when vegans proclaim that we should all be vegans. I'm not threatened by your choice. I'm threatened when you try to force your choice upon me. I am not aware of anyone trying to force you to eat meat. You need no excuse to limit your diet this way. I need no excuse for my diet either.

I'm signing off for the weekend. I hope you all enjoy it as much as I plan to.

Good points. Ditto!

 

[Herzblut]

Listen, Kevin, regarding the "Naturalistic Fallacy":

The people who make this claim are obviously making a mistake: They are claiming that as long as it's natural, it's "good" or "right". I am not making that claim (I don't know about the rest of the people here). What is natural is neither right nor wrong. Because "right" and "wrong" are concepts created by human culture.

For me as a naturalist, human culture is also part of nature. You assume it to be something ..well.. non-natural or supernatural or so? If not, you have to admit that any moral proposition is somehow based upon natural properties. Or what else? God?

There are processes, and the most you can say is that some processes are beneficial to evolution and others counterproductive. But nature doesn't know "right" or "wrong". It, in fact, will do anything as long as it benefits the evolutionary process (Not a very pretty role model for human morality, now is it?)

I see what you mean, but "beneficial" is another judgment call. Nature just evolves, and that might be regarded as beneficial or not for us. Take for instance the evolution of lactose tolerance which allows many humans to consume nutritious cow milk without troubles.

I am just always cautious if somebody shouts "naturalistic fallacy!", especially regarding a plain physical item like "diat". I don't accept that a natural, healthy, evolutionary successful diat should not be considered "good", I actually define it to be so.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Naturalistic fallacy? No, I'm saying I will eat meat because I need it to survive. I have low iron levels, amongst other things. I will not suffer by trying to eliminate red meat from my diet because someone objects to this diet we evolved to survive on. We are not "higher beings" than other animals, that is an arrogant point of view. Is that arrogance fallacy? We still kill each other, yes, and over stupid things sometimes, and we punish people for it since we don't want to be killed. But, we don't eat each other and make excuses for it. Cannabalism is where I'll draw the line, but in cases of surival people have crossed that too. That's what it is about. Surviving long enough to reproduce, and whoever does that wins. I will not kill myself or go nutrient deficient to appease someone's arrogance about "higher moral ground". I have kids to feed, and they will also not suffer a vegan diet to end up like some children whose parents are "morally" misguided. Nutrient deficiency in a child especially will cause implications I find more immoral than your objection to meat eating.
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20062325,00.html

 

[Cain]

Well, animals act to survive and breed, that's basically it. Whatever supports that, they prefer and are iterested in (if you like to use those terms).

Try as you might to diminish those interests, they're still present. We can say, "well, the reason humans enjoy *********** is because its evolution's way of inducing us to have children." Yeah, so?

I was actually referring to exactly this type of situation. If a late fetus was a human being, it simply could not be killed to try to save the mother's life. Likewise, you cannot just kill an innocent man (say, remove his heart) to save another man's life.

We knowingly kill innocent humans en masse with the vague promise that it will prevent future deaths. More to the point, we deny fully developed (but incapacitated) humans their life support. When it comes to removing a heart, or using any innocent person as a means to an end, then we're dealing with one of the most basic moral problems. It generally makes sense to have laws prohibiting this behavior (even on utilitarian grounds), but as discussed above circumstances and morality may dictate victimizing innocents/law-breaking.

---------------------------
Cyborg:

And how exactly do you know what their interests are?

My awesome powers of observation, which tell me dogs, for example, prefer to be scratched on the head rather than kicked in the ribs. While some dogs may not like their noggin rubbed, I'd wager fewer still enjoy getting kicked in the side.

But hey, I'm claiming privileged access to special information. People who keep pets have no idea what they're doing.

Your strawman, not ours.

I wish, but consumer behavior indicates otherwise.

Yes, and part of that ability to make moral decisions says that eating animals isn't wrong. You agree with this.

Yes, and people believe virgins could give birth, dead people can come back to life, and bread falls from heaven. A rational capacity does not always insure its use (cf. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=404150).

Everything else is a matter of resource management yet I see very little talk of this. Maybe that is just too pragmatic for you...

Quite the contrary, but this is not the first time, or regrettably the last, you dare to speak on matters of which you know so little. Some people come to veganism via environmental concerns, specifically how inefficient it is to produce meat (~12+ pounds of grain to generate a single pound of beef, unconscionable waste of water, cow farts, pig ****, health-care costs, land use). I have posts up about it, discussed the issue many times with people who are sharper than you.

Re: animal rights

No, it's pretty simple; the concept is stupid. It's stupid enough for people, extending it to animals that don't and can't have any concept of human social constructs is just ridiculous.

So it's stupid to extend rights to toddlers?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

For me as a naturalist, human culture is also part of nature. You assume it to be something ..well.. non-natural or supernatural or so? If not, you have to admit that any moral proposition is somehow based upon natural properties. Or what else? God?

If we're gonna go down that road, Human Culture is, if anything, a subset of nature. Because for it to exist, there had to be a nature that allowed creatures like us to exist in the first place. But I wouldn't call it "part" of nature, in the sense that nature is indifferent to what a particular evolved species (in this case, us, humans) decides what is "moral" and what isn't. Nature itself doesn't even have a consciousness to be aware of our cultural concepts and agreements. It just keeps doing what it does, blindly.

I see what you mean, but "beneficial" is another judgment call. Nature just evolves, and that might be regarded as beneficial or not for us. Take for instance the evolution of lactose tolerance which allows many humans to consume nutritious cow milk without troubles.

Of course the term "beneficial" is a word made up by human beings, but it's not a "judgment" call. What I meant is that nature doesn't act in terms of "right" and "wrong". There are just, processes and some of them are beneficial for a specific mean, and some aren't. Meaning, some processes make it easier/more likely for certain things to occur (such as the survival of a gene) and some make it harder/less likely.

 

[cyborg]

My awesome powers of observation, which tell me dogs, for example, prefer to be scratched on the head rather than kicked in the ribs. While some dogs may not like their noggin rubbed, I'd wager fewer still enjoy getting kicked in the side.

So nothing of any importance really to the subject at hand.

I wish, but consumer behavior indicates otherwise.

Since I am not presenting Mr Generic Consumer's arguments it is your strawman.

Yes, and people believe virgins could give birth, dead people can come back to life, and bread falls from heaven. A rational capacity does not always insure its use (cf. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/search.php?searchid=404150).

You agree that eating animals isn't wrong; a generic observation on human rational frailty doesn't change this.

Quite the contrary, but this is not the first time, or regrettably the last, you dare to speak on matters of which you know so little.

No you poopy head!

Some people come to veganism via environmental concerns, specifically how inefficient it is to produce meat (~12+ pounds of grain to generate a single pound of beef, unconscionable waste of water, cow farts, pig ****, health-care costs, land use).

I'd never heard this before! Thanks for your amazing sharpness!

(That was sarcasm BTW, but we can't move onto economics before you get past your moral superiority complex).

I have posts up about it, discussed the issue many times with people who are sharper than you.

No you poopy head!

So it's stupid to extend rights to toddlers?

With your razor sharp intellect and flawless reading comprehension skills - which show up how poor mine are with each finely crafted lexeme - you must have noticed that I was referring to all people so I'm going to presume you didn't write that and I'm hallucinating that statement.